Bill would extend lookback for public-construction certification to 10 years, tie recertification to PPI

A bill filed in the Massachusetts House on Jan. 14 would change how contractors qualify to bid on public-construction work by lengthening the experience lookback period and adding an inflation adjustment for recertification. Representative Meghan K. Kilcoyne (12th Worcester) filed House No. 3371, titled "An Act relative to public construction certification." Representative Jacob R. Oliveira (Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester) was later added as a petitioner on Feb. 13, 2025.

The measure would amend subsection (2) of Section 44D of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws by replacing the phrase "over the past five years" with "over the past ten years." It would also amend subsection (3) of the same section to add language directing "the division" to establish an annual inflationary increase for applicants seeking recertification "based upon the Producer Price Index as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." The bill text does not specify which division it intends by that term, nor does it name which Producer Price Index series or provide an implementation schedule.

The change from five to ten years would alter the period of prior work the statute requires applicants to demonstrate when showing the classes of work and aggregate amounts on which they are eligible to bid. The added sentence on recertification would require an annual adjustment for applicants seeking recertification, tied to the federal Producer Price Index, but leaves operational details—such as whether the adjustment affects monetary thresholds, bidding limits, or other certification criteria—unspecified in the text.

House No. 3371 was submitted under the House docket No. 1231 and assigned to the House committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, according to the filing information accompanying the bill. The filing represents an introduction of the proposal to the General Court; it is not an enacted law. Any change proposed in the bill would take effect only if the General Court passes the measure and the governor signs it into law.

The bill text refers to administrative implementation steps but omits key procedural details that would determine how the change affects bidders and certifying authorities. For example, the text does not name the division charged with setting the annual increase, does not specify which PPI series will be used, and does not set an effective date or transition rules for contractors currently certified under existing criteria.